Jump to content

Restoration of 2A Rights Possible After Past Felony Conviction?


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Felon-in-possession ban is nothing more than an infinite penalty. Someone commits a crime they are sentenced, serve time, get paroled, serve a probationary period and their punishment is over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No molly,

I stand by my statement.

The 2nd says nothing about a felon owning a gun. It says shall not be infringed.

Saying that someone cannot own one is in fact not agreeing with the 2nd, that would be agreeing with the other ruling.

 

It is only as complicated as one chooses to make it, by adding in this other ruling you have changed the context of my post.

And this still does not change the fact, the simple fact that nothing in the 2nd says anything about felons owning firearms.

Until they change the wording in the 2nd, we must stop assuming something is written into it and all laws passed that attempt to change the context of the 2nd are unconstitutional.

That's how we got to where we are now, slowly accepting that little things one by one will make no difference, well they add up and leave us asking what happened.

We need to stop, now.

We need to take it as written.

If the Court said women could not vote in national elections would you accept that as not being in violation of the 19th?

You can still vote in the local elections so your right is not violated.

 

My point is that you have an opinion. You have stated your opinion. You cannot declare that because

someone does not agree with you that they do not support the Second Amendment. It is that simple.

 

mrmagloo said civilized and intelligent folks SHOULD be able to distinguish between beyond black and white - we know that is not always the case, sometimes civilized and intelligent folks can't, for whatever reason, distinguish beyond black and white. Maybe this is one of those cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, it isn't that simple, and civilized, and intelligent folks should be able to distinguish beyond black and white. Just because one individual ABUSES his 2nd ammendment rights, doesn't mean he didn't have the opportunity to exercise those rights appropriately prior to the violent feloneous incident. The Violent Felon F'd up and he looses, period. Just another deterent if you want to look at it that way.

 

So seeing as I am uncivilized and unintelligent.( I think there may be a rule about personal attacks,but it may only apply to certian people)

please explain why this same guy when he gets out gets his other rights back...

What happens if you commit voter fraud?

You still get to vote in the next election...

No need to get defensive bhannah. I said we ALL should have the ability to consider issues without relying on a Black & White crutch. Rigid dichotomous thinking in and of itself induces anxiety, and is self-destructive, so open yourself to consider new ideas. Take the time to find middle ground in discussions, and that might ease things, fwiw.

 

Back to your questions, as it pertains to THIS discussion: The voter fraud dude if deemed a NON-Violent felon, should get his Gun rights restored after he completes his sentence and Imho, 10 years elapses.

 

What else do you got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that you have an opinion. You have stated your opinion. You cannot declare that because

someone does not agree with you that they do no support the Second Amendment. It is that simple.

 

 

I did not state an opinion...

I stated facts..

 

Lets talk simple..

 

In the 2nd does it say a felon cannot own...

you know what never mind I am done..

 

It apears as if the opinion is indeed fact...who knew that "shall not be infringed" right there in black and white realy meant "an x-felon cannot own a gun"

I guess it is my opinion that it is not there..

 

Amazing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my opinion that it is entirely too easy to become a felon in this day and age. Just having the

wrong kind of wood in your guitar or selling a garden or dairy product without the right seal of

approval can earn you a felony conviction. So I do not equate all felons to be the same.

 

Concerning violent, dangerous felons however: there was a time when dangerous criminals were

incarcerated for their full sentence or executed so they could no longer be a danger to society. If

and when they were released, the innocent public had the right to carry adequate protection against said violent offenders.

 

Today the violent criminal does not serve their whole sentence, does not pay their debt to society, and

the innocent public is held defenseless. In a just world, they would not be at large to prey upon

society. While this is the case, it is my opinion, violent criminals and the mentally ill who are a

danger to others should not be allowed to possess deadly weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my opinion that it is entirely too easy to become a felon in this day and age. Just having the

wrong kind of wood in your guitar or selling a garden or dairy product without the right seal of

approval can earn you a felony conviction. So I do not equate all felons to be the same.

 

Concerning violent, dangerous felons however: there was a time when dangerous criminals were

incarcerated for their full sentence or executed so they could no longer be a danger to society. If

and when they were released, the innocent public had the right to carry adequate protection against said violent offenders.

 

Today the violent criminal does not serve their whole sentence, does not pay their debt to society, and

the innocent public is held defenseless. In a just world, they would not be at large to prey upon

society. While this is the case, it is my opinion, violent criminals and the mentally ill who are a

danger to others should not be allowed to possess deadly weapons.

But in fact the 2nd does not say that..

It's ok you can say it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my opinion that it is entirely too easy to become a felon in this day and age. Just having the

wrong kind of wood in your guitar or selling a garden or dairy product without the right seal of

approval can earn you a felony conviction. So I do not equate all felons to be the same.

 

Concerning violent, dangerous felons however: there was a time when dangerous criminals were

incarcerated for their full sentence or executed so they could no longer be a danger to society. If

and when they were released, the innocent public had the right to carry adequate protection against said violent offenders.

 

Today the violent criminal does not serve their whole sentence, does not pay their debt to society, and

the innocent public is held defenseless. In a just world, they would not be at large to prey upon

society. While this is the case, it is my opinion, violent criminals and the mentally ill who are a

danger to others should not be allowed to possess deadly weapons.

But in fact the 2nd does not say that..

It's ok you can say it..

 

Dude, I don't think you get that your arguement would be a non-issue if the penal system wasn't broke. If not, the vast majority of violent criminals would never see the light of day, so you wouldn't have to worry about 2nd ammendment restoration debates. Whether they get to own a gun again would be the least of their worries.

 

OK, I get it. Let's flip it around. If you state a felon of any creed or depth deserves to be handed a gun along with his $75 on the way out the revolving door, only to shortly thereafter shoot up or threaten another happless victim, how many times does the guy get to bang societies head against the wall before YOU think enough is enough? Don't you get that this career violent criminal is diluting the perceived public good of the same 2nd ammendment right you *think* you are defending? You'd continue to defend his right even if it meant sacrificing your own?

 

What's not clicking here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that you have an opinion. You have stated your opinion. You cannot declare that because

someone does not agree with you that they do no support the Second Amendment. It is that simple.

 

 

I did not state an opinion...

I stated facts..

 

Lets talk simple..

 

In the 2nd does it say a felon cannot own...

you know what never mind I am done..

 

It apears as if the opinion is indeed fact...who knew that "shall not be infringed" right there in black and white realy meant "an x-felon cannot own a gun"

I guess it is my opinion that it is not there..

 

Amazing...

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." Yet yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech, and neither is slander. Your rights are not absolute, they end when they infringe on someone else's or society's as a whole.

 

The Second Amendment is not absolute either. Should we allow mentally ill persons to carry guns? Should 4-year-olds be allowed to carry guns?

 

Shall not be infringed? I wish it was that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But in fact the 2nd does not say that..

It's ok you can say it..

Do the research about regulations of the right to keep and bear arms at the time the Bill of Rights was written.

Read the discussions the founders had among themselves about the meaning, ramifications, and reach of the amendment.

There are some excellent research/analysis/and reference materials out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, I don't think you get that your arguement would be a non-issue if the penal system wasn't broke

Dude i totaly get that, but restricting anyones rights because of it is not an acceptable resolution.

 

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." Yet yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech, and neither is slander. Your rights are not absolute, they end when they infringe on someone else's or society's as a whole.

 

 

Congress never made a law saying it is..

The state did...therefor it is not "protected speach"

Now if the 2nd said congress shall make no laws prohibiting firearms, we would have a different story, kind of makes you wonder why the second is not worded that way, well not realy seeing as it is the second ,after the 1st I bet the wording was not in the 2nd for a very important reason.

Can you name me one law congress has passed restricting free speach? Kind of seems as if it is absolute after all.

 

The Second Amendment is not absolute either. Should we allow mentally ill persons to carry guns? Should 4-year-olds be allowed to carry guns?

 

Yes it is, don't like it change it...

This is not my argument, my argument is this. It does not matter what I think..that is opinion.

The fact is is says

"shall not be infringed"

 

There is no argument..

You can not deny it.

All these things you wish were in there are not it is pure opinion.

No senerio, no what if, no but I think will change this.

My opinion does not matter...

I agree with what Molly posted 100%, but that is my opinion.

 

Opinions do not change fact...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the research about regulations of the right to keep and bear arms at the time the Bill of Rights was written.

 

And yet the chose to write...

"shall not be infringed"

 

And yet the very same people who ratified "Congress shall pass no law..." also passed the Sedition Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much done too. Alot of entrenched opinions on this one for sure, but I think the point I was trying to make is, at some level, restoring rights after a felony conviction will undermine the 2A rights of the good law abiding citizens. Again, while I do in general support the notion, I simply don't feel violent felons should be eligible for such a mulligan or do-over. Violent felons absolutely have a higher probability of having another serious issue down the road, which could very well include a weapon that would in turn reflect poorly upon us law abiding citizens. While the violent felon could absolutely obtain a weapon illegally as the law stands now, the point is, in that scenario where a subsequent incident occurs, he is in unlawful possession and we, the law abiding citizens as a group don't take the full brunt of the hit for supporting his lawful access.

 

Imho, I'd much rather the law stands as is, than risk restoration with violent felons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a REALLY difficult topic. On one hand, we have 2A which doesn't make any distinction about felons. On the other hand, we have a reasonable belief that "violent people should be denied access to destructive tools per se (ie fierarms). On the other hand (yes the third) most of us believe that a firearm is primarily a tool...just like a hammer or a fire extinguisher, that in itself is not violent, and it's nature of being offensive or defensive, lays in it's use or intended use, not in the object itself. Still on another hand (we're up to four hands for those not counting) we have an outdated legal system based primarily on old English laws set over 200 years ago.

 

As to 2A specifically, and the Constitution in general, I can't recall anything with regard to adjudication status being relevant to any of a citizen's rights. HOWEVER, I do firmly believe that certain individuals should have limited access to firearms, primarily the mentally unstable. That said, I feel that anyone who commits a violent crime against another person, is mentally unstable.

 

 

Before we go any further, let's define what a felon is. A felon, is any person who has been adjudicated of a crime having a sentence of 365 days or more incarceration. A crime that has a sentence of less than a year is considered a misdemeanor.

There are many misdemeanors that under certain circumstances become felonies (these are known as aggravating factors, and can be as simple as masking identity, to number of offenses, to distance to a school, or even the occupation of the victim).

For instance, someone committing a Domestic Battery, could be charged as a misdemeanor...but if they did it while masked, to a fireman, to a senior citizen, or have a prior conviction, all of these would be considered as aggravating factors that would turn a misdemeanor into a felony. Now it doesn't mean that the criminal will be incarcerated for a year or more (90% of all felonies are plead out; never go to trial, and are often given probation). So criminal A breaks a 64 year old woman's arm, and they would most likely be sentenced to a misdemeanor...criminal B breaks a 65 year old woman's arm, and they would most likely be sentenced to a felony. It could be that neither is incarcerated, but only the felon has his rights restricted. In my mind, both should be treated equally. Neither should have unlimited access to firearms. Likewise, I believe each should be penalized equally, and that each should have their day in court.

 

I think our current laws and court system is in need of a severe overhaul. We need a system that doesn't just label criminals based on "possible" sentencing.

 

Crap...now I'm on a tangent.....

The reason that 90% of all felonies are "plead out" is because our government is more interested in showing good numbers, than trying good cases and bringing about good judgement. There are a lot of people walking around who should be in jail, and there are a lot people marked for life as felons, that might be totally innocent, but couldn't financially afford to go to trial, or were coerced into thinking that "pleading" was their best option. (Note- the government attorneys have unlimited financial resources for continuances, appearances, motions, etc; while the average citizen has limited access to afford the high fees of attorneys).

 

In summary, I'm saying this debate about "Do Felons have the same rights as other citizens", to me is a symptom of a much bigger problem in out legal system.

 

No, I don't know the answer, but I know this is the question.

 

For the record, I strongly believe in denying firearms to all violent criminals (misdemeanors AND felons) but I also believe there are too many people who are adjudicated felons, not because of their act, but because of their being bullied by the government. On the flip-side, I agree that putting opinions into application of the 2A is dangerous. As someone said, the facts are "all there in black and white"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents, forgiveness does not release you from the consequences of your actions. If you rob someone at gun point I don't have a problem with you loosing your gun rights.

 

This is a good discussion ... well, good until folks get carried away with their sensitivities.

 

But if we are going to talk about "forgiveness", we have to make sure we understand what forgiveness is. To be forgiven something is to be absolved of blame. By definition, forgiveness absolutely releases you from the consequences of your actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

colt-45:

I will do some asking, but I do know someone that got their FOID back after losing it. (I think it was due to felony DUI several years prior but can't say for sure)

 

I ran into him a couple years ago and he mentioned this in the same conversation in which he told me he had found religion and was working toward becoming a minister. Trust me when I say that the shock from that revelation overruled the rest of the conversation. I never considered him dangerous personally, but he was known to be familiar with the county sheriff for various infractions.

 

All I remember, other than the above, was that getting FOID back had taken a couple years. He seems very open about his past so I will ask when I bump into him again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically, once a sentence was served the debt to society was over. We set-up our penal system to avoid the whole scarlet letter scenario. If you are sentanced to 20 years to life and are released in 5 years, your sentence is still life, so a prohibition based on a violent conviction is acceptable. Your remedy is pardon or have your record expunged. If you are sentenced to 5 years and serve 5 years your obligation is over upon release and restricting your rights would be improper.

 

Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, our penal system is way out of kilter as too the time fitting the crime. Five years for an eagle feather or an undocumented rosewood guitar is preposterous, but currently the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I said it was dubious. I just didn't know and I suspect no one could really be sure until the courts weigh in. The whole situation seems pretty murky to me. Consider what happened in WY a few years ago when they came up with the idea of expunging felonies but not the records of the felonies as a means of restoring rights. The ATF did not buy into that. I am not even real sure what ended up happening there.

 

Has the restoration of rights via this ISP review process ever resulted in someone actually regaining his/her rights and subsequently purchasing a firearm?

 

This is an agency that has almost routinely ignored judicial expungement orders it consdiered invalid.

 

 

yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this discussion, I am surprised no one has brought up the 8th amendment. I realize some believe the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, but then I never understand then why the 6th, 7th and 8th where included in the Bill of Rights if this was true.

For the extreme crimes I can see a life penalty with lose of rights, but not across the board as it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this discussion, I am surprised no one has brought up the 8th amendment. I realize some believe the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, but then I never understand then why the 6th, 7th and 8th where included in the Bill of Rights if this was true.

For the extreme crimes I can see a life penalty with lose of rights, but not across the board as it is now.

 

That's because Democrat politicians don't read past the First Amendment and Republicans don't read past the Second. The Third is a big joke and the Fourth and Fifth don't count if terrorism looms.

 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this discussion, I am surprised no one has brought up the 8th amendment. I realize some believe the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, but then I never understand then why the 6th, 7th and 8th where included in the Bill of Rights if this was true.

For the extreme crimes I can see a life penalty with lose of rights, but not across the board as it is now.

 

That's because Democrat politicians don't read past the First Amendment and Republicans don't read past the Second. The Third is a big joke and the Fourth and Fifth don't count if terrorism looms.

 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

I am a BIG supporter of Third Amendment rights!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this discussion, I am surprised no one has brought up the 8th amendment. I realize some believe the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, but then I never understand then why the 6th, 7th and 8th where included in the Bill of Rights if this was true.

For the extreme crimes I can see a life penalty with lose of rights, but not across the board as it is now.

 

That's because Democrat politicians don't read past the First Amendment and Republicans don't read past the Second. The Third is a big joke and the Fourth and Fifth don't count if terrorism looms.

 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

I am a BIG supporter of Third Amendment rights!

 

Good old third amendment.... I used to stumble home drunk on leave while still on active duty and pass out on my buddies moms couch all the time only to have her find me in the morning and bring me coffee. Was I a civil rights violator? I'm pretty sure if I hadn't have been military she would have kicked me out after the first time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I wish for the immediate death penalty for any perverted crime involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, and heineous sexual crimes against women. However, the fact remains a felony is a felony, and in this discussion, I remain of the opinion that only Non-Violent Felons should be elegible for restoration of rights after say 10 years or something significant enough to proven they have learned their lesson AND are walking the straight and narrow. By non-violent, I'm saying white collar crime that incurs a sentence of less than 5 years. (Sentenced not served)

 

I agree with you. If one commits a violent offence, they should never have any rights restored. In fact, they should no longer be allowed to walk this earth for serious violent offences (rape, murder, offences against children, etc...). For a non-violent offence, I would be ok with full restoration, but only if it was a long process that required actual proof that the criminal has completely turned his (or her) life around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I wish for the immediate death penalty for any perverted crime involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, and heineous sexual crimes against women. However, the fact remains a felony is a felony, and in this discussion, I remain of the opinion that only Non-Violent Felons should be elegible for restoration of rights after say 10 years or something significant enough to proven they have learned their lesson AND are walking the straight and narrow. By non-violent, I'm saying white collar crime that incurs a sentence of less than 5 years. (Sentenced not served)

 

I agree with you. If one commits a violent offence, they should never have any rights restored. In fact, they should no longer be allowed to walk this earth for serious violent offences (rape, murder, offences against children, etc...). For a non-violent offence, I would be ok with full restoration, but only if it was a long process that required actual proof that the criminal has completely turned his (or her) life around.

 

Just another way to say, "Let the time fit the crime".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Good old third amendment.... I used to stumble home drunk on leave while still on active duty and pass out on my buddies moms couch all the time only to have her find me in the morning and bring me coffee. Was I a civil rights violator? I'm pretty sure if I hadn't have been military she would have kicked me out after the first time

 

Well, if she made you coffee in the morning, you can pretty much assume she consented to your presence there. So no, you didn't violate her right not to quarter soldiers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...